Deep sea oil drilling rejected by Muriwai meeting

On Sunday the Green Party hosted a meeting of around 80 people about oil drilling off the West Coast of the North Island. We invited KASM (Kiwi Against Seabed Mining) , Oil Free Auckland, and Deep Sea Oil Watch Auckland to speak about their concerns about the Government and the corporates’ agenda to mine the marine environment.

Everyone at the meeting was clearly very concerned about the petroleum exploration permits off the West Coast which the Government has put up for tender. Before the tender closes in late September, community people are keen to support the Greens Kiwi Bid which is an offer seeking the right to love and protect the marine environment, rather than to drill it. Already 8,500 people have joined the Kiwi Bid.

Locals were also very keen to create more visibility about deep sea oil drilling that could take place as close as 12 nautical miles off their beach. Like many other communities they are preparing signs to inform the thousands of Aucklanders who love Muriwai Beach that oil drilling in the deep ocean is not acceptable.

The Muriwai community places high value on their environment and were horrified by the photographs we showed of last week’s oil spill affecting the island of Kot Samui in Thailand. The 50,000 litres of spilled oil came from a broken pipeline and has polluted the beaches. This spill was tiny compared to the millions of litres that contaminated the Gulf of Mexico, but after the Rena who can pretend that accidents cannot happen to us, or that we are prepared to deal with them?

It was great to meet the passionate members of the community groups who are developing information and action in Auckland region about alternatives to the hopeless Government strategy to risk our environment so that foreign companies can make a profit.

Investing in clean energy and a green transition are essential but it will take a change of Government!

Interesting then that you’ve said you don’t care about the GCSB, have no interest, are not bothered, think it’s a non-issue.
In any case, you have built yourself a little straw man there for some dull fool to tilt at. No one is saying there should be no GCSB. The issue is the proposed powers for them to spy on NEW ZEALANDERS, something they were legally barred from doing, something they did anyway. The law should be made more effective for our protection, not thrown aside completely.
Oops! Too much information for you photonz1, as someone who couldn’t give a toss about the issue.

Interesting then that quotes from Sir Geoffrey Palmer about how the GCSB was crucial to NZ’s economic security (made when he was Prime minister), have been used IN SUPPORT of the bill.

In fact information obtained by the GSCB about where fishing companies were drift netting, how much they were catching etc, was described by Sir Geoffrey as the “king hit” which resulted in the drift net ban in the South Pacific.

And Sir Geoffrey says this is just one example of how important the GCSB are to NZ.

But according to photonz1, Sir Geoffrey’s warnings are of no account, because the thousands and thousands of people who don’t have Sir Geoffrey’s knowledge of the issue, don’t care, aren’t worried, feel untroubled.
Beautiful logic there – Tory logic, I’m betting.
No, nothing to see here because we can’t see anything.

Sir Geoffrey Winston Russell Palmer KCMG AC QC (born 21 April 1942) served as the 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand from August 1989 until September 1990, leading the Fourth Labour Government. He was responsible for considerable reforms of the country’s legal and constitutional framework, such as the creation of the Constitution Act 1986, New Zealand Bill of Rights, Imperial Laws Application Act and the State Sector Act.

Palmer later went on to serve as Professor of Law at Victoria University again. He also held a position as Professor of Law at the University of Iowa, and worked for a time as a law consultant. The MMP system which he had helped promote was adopted in a 1993 referendum. In 1994, he established Chen Palmer & Partners, a specialist public law firm he began with Wellington lawyer Mai Chen. In September 2001 Palmer became a founding trustee of Motu Economic and Public Policy Research and in December 2002 was appointed to be New Zealand’s representative to the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Palmer continued his involvement with, and teaching at Victoria University of Wellington and was regularly engaged as an expert consultant on public and constitutional law issues. His son Matthew Palmer is also a prominent legal academic and public servant.

On 1 December 2005 Palmer was appointed to the presidency of the New Zealand Law Commission (the government agency that reviews, reforms and seeks to improve the country’s laws) by the Governor General for a term of five years. During his tenure, he persuaded the Government to engage in a programme of reviewing the old Law Commission reports with a view to actioning them. This resulted in a number of existing reports being actioned.[2] Palmer stepped down from the Law Commission at the end of his tenure on 1 December 2010.

They don’t care about it?
That shows a lack of awareness to me. If someone said to me that they don’t care about the snapper limits, I’d suspect that they haven’t been following the discussion. I care about the snapper limits, though I live in a snapper-free zone. When I hear that snapper fishermen don’t care about the GCSB bill, I think that they haven’t been following the discussion about the GCSB and that they aren’t in a good position to make an informed comment on it. Sir Geoffrey has and is. For that reason, I take note of his warning and dismiss the position of the snapper fishermen on this issue.
“Snapper limits are more important”, you say, gerrit?
I suppose a child might say, getting that lolly from under the table is more important, but we are not discussing lollies in this thread, we are talking…the GCSB bill deep sea oil

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, ex-PM and head of the GCSB not well-informed? His opinion on the spying legislation not better informed than the average snapper fisherman?
Have you lost your mind, Gerrit?
Your envy of the Greens’ position is making you crazy.
Get
a
grip.

Did I say any of those 30,000 were in the South Island? Nah. You dont have snapper down there but wait till the blue and red cod fisheries are denied to the recreational and customary angler.

Geoffery Palmer “well informed”. Debatable. Opinionated Yes.

Yet, his opinion is worth no more than mine as regards voting power.

How dear us plebs, have trite thoughts. It is that level of self righteousness so displayed by your tuly (more often seen by the 95kpm drivers in the outside lane of the motorway – possibly out of your sphere on understanding) that we may consider other things far more important (such as the price of petrol and the ability to be able to catch a feed for the family) then beltway issues such as you tritely consume yourself with.

Not that the Greens are yours truly would ever know what the people of Manurewa think. No one asks. Just assumes that the bill in question is more important than what we plebs discuss sitting in the barber shop (waiting for the No2) to discuss the poliitcal climate.

Thermodynamics – I am cold and see a lump of coal. Light the coal and warmth radiates through my body.

Physics – The earth revolves around the sun, apples fall downwards.

Conservation of Energy – I sit on the couch and my wife brings me my beer and snacks. I conserve energy, she expands just a little more whilsts doing the ironing but it is less then I would have used, therefor an overall conservation energy.

Gerrit – you are making the point that populist issues attract more people.
Okey dokey then. With that truism out of the way, let’s look at how the really serious, opaque issues might be communicated to the voting public. The wider community might be talking about snapper, gerrit, (in the North Island anyway – you seem to be arrogantly presuming that we in the South are consumed by snapper-insecurity, but we aren’t)
When very well informed people like Geoffrey Palmer step out to declare their sincere concern about an issue that ordinary people are not au fait with, your suggestion that snapper’s more important, looks trite. Attending to critical issues is not trumped by vote catching, which is what you seem to be praising the Government for and slamming the Greens for not doing.
Integrity is a slipperly little fish, but the Green MPs have great hands.

Reasons for submissions on snapper – “I want more!”
Reasons for submissions on the GCSB – this is a serious attack on human rights”.
Parties submitting on snapper – individual snapper fishermen.
Parties submitting on the GCSB – the Law Society, ex-prime Ministers, New Zealander of the Year…

Yep, photonz1, that snapper thing – crucial! The difference is, National have fed the snapper issue to make it front-page, knowing that they can afford to sacrifice their position and win support as a ‘listening party’, where they’ve smothered talk on the GCSB (Key refusing to front on anything other than Sport Radio to talk about any current issue) knowing that their position is untenable. You, photonz1, obedient servant of the Government, would have us believe that you are unaware of these things, but you are not so clever as to be unreadable.

Only to people who don’t understand thermodynamics and conservation of energy Photonz. Those with the proper education find it simple enough.

There really isn’t much point in continuing. I can’t be troubled to try again to correct your misreading of what I posted, but I will point out once more that it was NOT about NZ… yet.

If the data used did not exclude the “dividend” distributions the source did not specify… and from my point of view it really matters very little. Real money does not naturally form MORE money. It is an unnatural and massive dislocation of the laws of the Universe… an easy natural concept for any economist.

Bj, not trying to be nasty, but if you don’t understand fundamental concepts like dividends come from profits, then I don’t like your chances of setting up a really strange and complicated monetary system that takes weeks just to explain how it works

The problem is that we’ve rewarded “ownership” far more generously than we’ve rewarded work. I go a long way past most people with this, but it wants a big change. See Steve Keen’s site.

The arrangements I envision are so vastly different from what you are used to it doesn’t really make sense to even argue them with you.

Using real money transforms a lot more than just the finance sector. Real money represents work done. Demurrage instead of inflation.

Interest free loans but you can’t use money itself to make money, you have to build infrastructure or produce goods and services with it and spend it because demurrage makes the big piles smaller… if it gets recycled you don’t lose any but you can’t just draw it on demand. The changes touch everything.

Own a restaurant? Can make money if you make good food there. Tough business. You cannot sit back and loaf while others labor. If all you do is “own” you get nothing. Same with the Generator but for a different reason. Power generation is a special case owing to the way money is redefined. So it goes. Profoundly different. You can trust me that it possesses internal self-consistency but it could take weeks to explain to most folk, and less than 15 minutes to explain to an engineer.

So I ain’t really interested in trying to explain it on a thread that is 100+ posts long already.

As to your other point. Money cannot make money. Work cannot make additional work. It fails on a basic level. Physics. Reality.

Most economists are exactly as gormless as you, so you can quote almost any of them apart from Steve Keen. Doesn’t matter. All those beautiful self-referencing theories slain by rude reality.

nobody who has ever saved from their hard work is ever … make any income from their savings

Didn’t say you can’t OWN stuff dude… said you can’t make money by owning it. Different idea. As for the remainder which I left up here, is exactly right. You can’t make money because you have money. It isn’t a sustainable model and it doesn’t honor the work that real money actually represents.

Not that I expect you to understand.

I still think this thread is too long and lonesome. We ought to clear out.

The profits being discussed mate, are profits after tax and distribution.

Not the dividends…

You have to be really stubborn about this, but the point I made SHOULD have been very very clear. I was talking about a change in situation that is CLEARLY unsustainable. A trend, from about a century ago (Jekyll Island) in which the financial sector went from 5% of the economy to overtake the farming and manufacturing sectors in terms of profit after tax profits share. It owns the US government, and makes 42% of all the money made in the private sector. Was 5%… was 10%… now climbing rabidly (a 3 way!).

BJ says “The people who work at Coats are earning something. The people who OWN it are not working.”

In BJ’s nutty world nobody who has ever saved from their hard work is ever allowed to own anything or make any income from their savings.

You don’t even seem to comprehend basic facts like company profits are what are used to pay dividends to all the shareholders / superannuatants.

NJ says “..it is about the fact that a dividend paid to the individual investor is not “profit”,”

Unbeleivable! Of course it is.

That’s what dividends come from. Telecom pay out 90$ of their profit in dividends and reinvest 10%, same for Warehouse, Mighty River Power pay out 100% of profits in dividends, Auckland Airport pay 100% of profit in dividends, Trademe 82%, and growth companies like Ryman who are heavily reinvesting in new retirement homes pay out 50% in dividends.

You’re so brainwashed about profit being evil that you don’t even know what it really is, or that profit is distributed as dividends.

The people who work at Coats are earning something. The people who OWN it are not working.

The difference IS simple. The problem however, is one that won’t ever get through your failed vision of how the world should be… whatever it is.

However, the problem here isn’t about THAT, it is about the fact that a dividend paid to the individual investor is not “profit”, but the profits of the companies involved are after EVERYTHING, including the Chairman of the Board’s massive suck on the teat.

At some point I’d hope you’d recognize that this is not a viable or sustainable model, nor is the model presented by the “ownership” meme unless every citizen has a share of that ownership. Clearly this isn’t happening and isn’t GOING to happen. The GINI in NZ continues to rise, and it isn’t going to change for the better until the structural imbalance and inequity is addressed. Which means that National will have to be turned out of office first.

Your arguments on these issues bespeak a blind obedience or naivete’ that is perhaps unhealthy.

I suggest though, without demanding the last word, that we should abandon this thread as it serves neither of us.

Photonz…. Business is not the society, and Banking is not the only business there is, but that is EXACTLY what is happening with the profits in the USA. Your blase’ attitude towards this, parallels your understanding of how bad an uncontrolled GCSB can be. Blind faith in the authority that you HAVE to mistrust if you would keep your freedom. Blind faith in the honesty of bankers who have been shown to be the most dishonest humans on the planet… as though LIBOR, the Global Financial Collapse, the forex scandal and all the rest mean nothing to you. They do don’t they… mean nothing to you I mean.

The financial sector owns everything worth owning and makes a vastly larger percentage of the profits than it did back when the country actually produced goods. The USA can survive more of that because it owns the reserve currency of the planet, so everybody pays when the Just Pay Morgan pig squeals… but a new arrangement is emerging which will eventually remove that advantage.

The value of the NZ stockmarket vs the profits made by every company operating in New Zealand? Which is larger? What the hell comparison are you even trying to make? Relevance is lacking in your argument, because the dividends to shareholders are not the same as the profits of the corporations.

As I said, the situation is not precedented. Was not true even in the 1980’s though it has been worsening since the introduction of the fractional reserve federal-reserve fraud.

You aren’t even arguing the same issue yet.

As for your other claim, it is risible. The Greens propose billions and have explained where they expect the money will come from, and if they are in power, they will make the books balance.

Sustainability demands no less.

Spending more than the revenue you collect IS certainly unsustainable, and both Labour and National are guilty of forcing the whole of our society to do that. Your claims are unsustainable however, because YOU are making up numbers to support them. The Greens have other numbers and knowing which are going to prove correct (likely neither), is not reasonable.

The point here is that YOU are accusing the Greens of violating their own principles based on NO evidence.

Lying about the Greens.

As you and your ilk have ALWAYS lied about us.

The dishonesty of National party and its sycophantic followers is not surpassed by members of the Tea Party or the Heartland Institute or the denialists or any other pack of like minded fools in history.

BJ says “Greens stand for sustainability, and there is no way in which you can justify any assertion that the unsustainable sort of borrowing and spending that is going on now under National, or went on with Labour, would be a feature of a Green government. ”

That’s funny. The Greens propose billions in extra spending, but every time they’re asked, have completely failed to be able to explain where all the money will come from.

Spending that much more than the revenue you collect is the opposite of sustainable.

BJ says “I can’t believe that even you would assert that it is “fine” for non-productive foreign interests to suck up 40% of the profit from all commercial activities in the entire fucking country…”

Clearly business is not your strong point.

Much of the finance sector owns other companies, from every other sector. So you claim the profits are non-productive is clearly nonsense.

Retirement investments alone in NZ are equal to almost the whole value of the NZ stockmarket. The majority of this is invested through the financial sector into just about every publicly listed business.

Which also makes a nonsense of your claims of all the profits of the financial sector going overseas, when they’re largely added to Kiwis retirement savings.

Photonz, this is YOUR assertion, it has nothing to do with Green policies, it is your imagination running wild. In this YOU ARE A LIAR, because you definitely know better and have been told of your error.

spending billions more than the revenue you collect is long term thinking

Greens stand for sustainability, and there is no way in which you can justify any assertion that the unsustainable sort of borrowing and spending that is going on now under National, or went on with Labour, would be a feature of a Green government.

You do not comprehend just how different this nation would or could be.

“Forty Two Percent of after tax profit in the USA is the financial sector. That is what your vision will lead to”

That’s fine.

The financial sector runs ALL Kiwisaver accounts which means ordinary New Zealanders are investing for retirement.

I can’t believe that even you would assert that it is “fine” for non-productive foreign interests to suck up 40% of the profit from all commercial activities in the entire fucking country… while producing bupkus. It is fortunate we’re not actually that bad off yet, but the USA is in a deepening hole.

It was 3-5% back in the fortunate 50’s when I was just a kid, and people had a shot, were optimistic about the future, and the economy grew to beat hell. Top marginal tax was around 90%, but you had to be making a LOT to get hit so hard… and everyone worked hard anyway, in spite of that tax rate. Funny how the lie of the disincentive is so easily shown if you actually look.

That aside… the point is that that 40%+ is viewed very negatively by people who have working brains. It doesn’t represent ANY useful production, or jobs, but it is counted as a positive in the statistics.

True photonz1. But the fares only went up under Infratil’s tenure, which was my point.

Admittedly, there is a desire from the regional council to decrease subsidies – which was essentially the reason for selling in the first place; to reduce liabilities – but Infratil, quite rightly, is in it for the money and they are rewarded quite handsomely for it (including significant ongoing subsidies).

According to the Wellington RTLS (2011), bus patronage has scarcely increased over Infratil’s tenure and has been essentially static since 2007.

In 2005 the price was about $2.50 for a 2 zone casual trip. Now it’s $3.50.

Admittedly regular users see considerable benefit utilising the Snapper service in terms of price but even that has gone up 33% with the added bonus that the Snapper service frequently overcharges and, unlike the old multitrip ticket, you are charged for the pleasure of putting money on your travel card.

bj says “Forty Two Percent of after tax profit in the USA is the financial sector. That is what your vision will lead to”

That’s fine.

The financial sector runs ALL Kiwisaver accounts which means ordinary New Zealanders are investing for retirement.

They are investing in all sort of companies, including NZ manufacturers, exporters, and foreign companies which brings profits into NZ.

There are also other companies in the financial sector including investment companies like one of our biggest – Infratil. When they make a profit it means lots of people have been using public transport systems in our biggest cities,like their bus businesses, and airports, or using their renewable energy.

So you might think the financial sector makes money merely by pushing money around, but often it is made from far more tangible business like owning and running public transport, manufacturers, and other businesses right across every sector.

Forty Two Percent of after tax profit in the USA is the financial sector. That is what your vision will lead to (and in this country the financial sector isn’t even the NEW ZEALAND financial sector). No matter how much milk we pump out of our pastures.

It is an unfortunate truth Photonz, that you are incapable of dealing with a multi-dimensional value system or long-time-scales.

It is an unfortunate truth Photonz, that you do not appear to understand what money actually is, or why the government CAN invest in power plants or rail systems if it is inclined to do so.

If we did the everything that the Greens tell us are necessary in order to bring us a sustainable economy (including Green spending priorities), we’d become a prosperous and INDEPENDENT nation, not beholden to foreign investors for our livelihoods OR our housing.

The foreign bankers and some real-estate investors however, would be gutted.

Your problem is that you don’t work the long term for shit mate. You can’t get past next year, and don’t usually get past next quarter.

Obviously you think having a stable power supply without rolling blackouts like the 90s has no value to society.

Funny that:

1. It isn’t obvious. My point which was clear enough the first time, is that the motivation for investment by government (the society) isn’t monetary. You continue to assume and assert that this is all that matters to investors.

2. It isn’t necessary either. Altering the demand mix IS one of the ways in which power is shared efficiently.

We are among the LEAST efficient users of power in the OECD… this can be fixed, and had better be fixed, in coming years. As long as we don’t pay careful attention to this area we’re going to have trouble and as long as we deregulate and privatize as a religion, it is going to get WORSE.

you’d have to be an idiot to invest in the electricity sector under the Labour Green plan as you’re going to lose money

So all you are concerned about is money, not value to the society. Which is basically your riff, always has been. It still makes you blind to alternatives. If the electricity investments do not “make money” they still may make SENSE. The government is NOT in place to “make money”.

Really? so how come you never consider it as being possible to use other means to manage investment in electrical power generation? Did you REALLY not think of it… the same as those “electricity sector analysts” failed to consider it?

Meh! If it is about what you think I only notice what you are missing, the why is just conjecture… based on the fact that you ALWAYS miss the same sort of things but seem sharp enough otherwise.

Knowing that the mass transit doesn’t meet the needs of the many who aren’t near the lines or have destinations that aren’t near the lines explains some of your problem. The other part of it is capacity and capacity management.

If there is one track the trains can’t do better in general than a train every 2 minutes, which I saw in Moscow, or 2.5 minutes which is the best I am aware of London managing. That pretty much IS the limit for a train system – the Russians have the theoretical capability of getting it down another 20-30 seconds, but I doubt they’d want to. The capacity limit once saturated can be increased only by putting in more track and rail cars in service.

So you have a problem with peak trips and not enough utilization off peak. Sort of like power plants sizing. Same ANSWER applies too.

The rush hour peak has to be flattened. Just as the peak consumption of power has to be flattened. This is a societal adjustment. DEMAND management…

…and a lot EASIER and SAFER than the alternatives that the blinded by bau are trying to condemn us to.

During peak peiods, the tubes are congested, the railways are congested, the busses are congested, the walkways are congested, and the roads are congested. Even cyclists are congested. The ferrys (where and when they existed) were congested.

Every one of these pathways is serving moving people, and for many of these people, they are taking the only viable and/or reasonable mode of transport, whatever that mode may be. Few people have realistic choices, once you factor in real life constraints.

I now live near Christchurch. It would be lovely to imagine an underground network covering Christchurch with supporting commuter rail reaching from Ashburton southwards to Woodend, Oxford, Darfield etc northwards.

The UK “Thameslink” service goes north and south of London, and covers twice that geographic area. Its not a single area, but a complex mish-mash of trains. It is unusual as the services go through London, whereas most other rail terminates at London. For most places there is not less than two trains per hour, and every 15 minutes (more in peak) is common on many parts. Thameslink rocks.

They are spending beelions of pounds on its upgrade.

Could New Zealand ever afford such a system? Are there enough perople in Canterbury to justify it? Is it even a good idea? Will next generation personal transport be here first?

no matter what the price incentives, doesn’t actually go where or when a huge number of people want or need to travel.

I’ve done around a dozen individual trips around the city today.
– Not a single one of them could be done on public transport at the times I needed to be places.
– Most would require going all the way into the city centre just to get onto a connection, taking hours longer than the car trips.
– Many places I went were simply nowhere near public transport routes.

Yup. That isn’t even a surprise, with the dearth of public transport planning and development over the past 3 decades. The money invested is risible compared to the need and the development plans of the businesses involved often include no consideration of how easy or difficult it is to get there BY public transit. In other words, there has not been any emphasis or development based on the actual long term needs of the society.

The only consideration ever used is a short term ROI based on how many commuters it takes off the roads and the current price of petrol. It is damnably stupid.

Do you understand the difference between a long term vision and a short term benefit?

Do you realize that the London Metro is not even in the top 10 for annual passenger rides?

I lived in Moscow without a car for weeks. It was possible to get pretty much anywhere in that city in about 15 minutes for the equivalent of $0.25. THAT was a metro system. Auckland is a JOKE. Making it more serious is not the same as making it good, but Britomart left me in awe… of the stupidity.

Where it was NECESSARY, the public transport was made to work. We haven’t seen fit to make it workable and National is gormless enough to reckon it isn’t and won’t ever be needed.

Except it is… and WHEN we are elected it’ll be our job to repair that oversight… and the damage to the power generation assets, much as we were forced to repair the damage to Kiwirail.

Photonz1 – you keep mentioning that the London tube system only transports about 10% of the population, but don’t say how many of the population of London simply stays at home or within walking distance. Even amongst those people who travel further than just walking, what fraction of the people-miles are served by the tube versus private vehicles?

BJ – you totally fail to comprehend that public transport, no matter what the price incentives, doesn’t actually go where or when a huge number of people want or need to travel.

I’ve done around a dozen individual trips around the city today.
– Not a single one of them could be done on public transport at the times I needed to be places.
– Most would require going all the way into the city centre just to get onto a connection, taking hours longer than the car trips.
– Many places I went were simply nowhere near public transport routes.

BJ says “At a particular price for petrol mate.”

London ALREADY has very high fuel costs, ALREADY has high congestion charges, and ALREADY has extortionate parking prices.

Yet with high population (not like NZ cities) high density (not like NZ cities), and a a massive tube system (not like NZ cities), it still only transports around 10% of the population.

At a particular price for petrol mate. You ALWAYS keep status quo assumptions and they are ALWAYS a problem when you try to imagine something new. I’m not impressed by your disability in this respect.

It is delusional to think that when the price of burning petrol is raised the behaviour of the people who currently choose the car for its convenience will not alter. I have been in several cities where the automobile is less important than it is in London.

Public transit is disdained here because the wealthy don’t need it. That WILL change. Understanding that it will change and preparing for that change is what Greens will do and what National (and you) cannot even imagine. A disability.

Our children will need all the imagination they can find to cope with what we are doing and failing to do here and now. We owe them at least, the effort to prepare and the effort to protect them and ourselves from exploitation. Key is selling this nation out to foreign industry. He has the soul of a pimp.

BJ – the Greens expensive dream rail plan only caters for just 5% of Aucklanders (but not for a decade or two).

Even one of the worlds most extensive public transport systems of any city in the world – the London Tube, with several hundred stations and hundreds of km of track – is used by little more than 10% of the London population each day.

Such expensive public rail systems are potentially worth doing, but it’s delusional to think they are some grand solution.

When they won’t cater for 95+% of the countries population, the difference they’ll make in cutting the country’s carbon emissions will be nearly insignificant.

As I’ve always debated, the solution lies in new transport and fuel technology that we don’t yet have.

He is correct about one thing. Greens were never in government. Refer to Winston Peters for an understanding of how THAT happens to be true

The problem is perhaps that we perceive the full spectrum of subsidies affecting the industry rather than simply the explicit subsidies affecting the corporations… as you draw that distinction. It makes no difference to the encouragement of consumption of the product and to me that makes it all the same. Legally? Not the same. Effectively it is.

Which is NOT a failing of the industry but a failing of the society and its self-governance.

I don’t blame the industry for taking what it can get, but the raw greed expressed and evident in the government paper I referenced, leaves a sour taste… and there ARE elements of the extraction industry which are actively working to mislead the global society and influence governments.

Returning to the offshore drilling, and the risks involved, the question is who bears those risks. Under this government the people of New Zealand are liable for them. The drilling company gets its profit undiluted by the potential for disaster. The government collects its fraction, which is lower than most other countries demand of the extraction industries, and lowers taxes for the wealthiest among us.

The painful truth here is that New Zealanders have failed utterly to learn the correct lessons from the 80’s. The lessons of this century will as a result, be more expensive.

Photonz, 60% of the population lives in our major cities and with appropriate levels of transit would need nothing but that and taxi-cabs (or automated electric vehicles), fire-trucks and ambulances. What it appears that you’ve done is equate the situation NOW as the way things ought to or will be in the future.

Firstly, this is a tax exemption put in place by the Labour / Green’s government, and extended by National.

Newsflash! The greens have not yet been in government spam.

Secondly, the exemption is for taxation in New Zealand, where New Zealand has double-taxation agreements with the countries that those companies are resident in, so that they do not pay tax in both duristictions when earnign income in New Zealand.

We as taxpayers are effectively paying for all the risk with no guarantee that anything will be found to ensure a return on that subsidy. Worse yet the government is spending our money to promote private business interests to develop a highly dangerous industry.

So, the net effect is that with more support vessels and more crew hours, then the amount of taxes paid on those will increase.

Got any figures to support that claim? If you cannot provide any figures shall we just cut to the chase and call you a LIAR!

Therefore, this “exemption” has probably increased tax take.

Probably? Talk about an idiotic argument. Giving an “exemption” means taxes will be higher…quack!

I note the subtle change from “Oil and gas companies” to the “oil and gas industry”, so you’re backling off on your original claim already, but again the “facts”, even those reported by you, don’t actually match your claims.

You are now resorting to stupid semantics! I was, if it wasn’t obvious to you spam, including all oil and gas industry undertakings. Things like the $20 million the current government is providing for exploration costs and things like the $26.4 million the previous government spent on seismic surveys of frontier offshore basins between 2004 and 2010 directly benefit the oil and gas industry. Therefore it should be included in any overall subsidy calculation.

Essentially it appears to claim that not taxing something is actually subsidising it, which is just nuts

Oh dear! Is that all you’ve got? Clearly not charging a company taxes is subsidizing them. They are getting a tax break ie a subsidy.

There is no special treatment for oil and gas companies!

There clearly is special treatment for oil and gas companies in New Zealand. That special treatment amounts to $326.6 million over five years, hence my comment that the oil and gas industry is being subsidized by the government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Read my other comments in that thread, too, particularly where I point out you were completely wrong on seismic costs.

I have provided an IRD report that shows how much taxpayer money the government is giving to seismic testing for the oil and gas industry. What part of that did you fracking not understand spam?

First you call me a liar because you’re ignorant of the facts. Then when the facts are presented you say that I am still wrong! Your apology seems as hollow as your argument spam.

OK – I actually apologise to you Jackal. Lying requires intent to deceive. I acknowledge that you honestly believe your statements, which means you are not lying.

I still think you are completely wrong however.

Let’s revisit what you said. You said:“However, there is no actual accurate figures provided. Also, National has in place a number of tax incentives, holidays and exemptions that mean many oil and gas companies don’t pay any tax at all. The government also subsidizes the oil and gas industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.”

-and –

Budget 2009 will make provision for a five year continuation of a [tax] exemption for offshore oil and gas exploration.

[…]

In conjunction with the recently announced $20-million injection into government-funded seismic data acquisition.

The governments investment into and tax exemption of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand was more than $100 million in 2012 alone.

Now read carefully as I demonstrate why you are completely misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what you are linking to.

We’ll start with the part about the National Goverment’s subsidies to Oil & Gas companies. Firstly, this is a tax exemption put in place by the Labour / Green’s government, and extended by National. It is not a tax break for Oil and Gas Companies, as oil and gas companies in New Zealand don’t get the exemption. It is for non-resident companies providing Seismic and drilling exploration wells. Oil and Gas companies don’t shoot their own seismic and they don’t drill their own wells. They employ other companies to do this, and it is those companies that get the exemption. Secondly, the exemption is for taxation in New Zealand, where New Zealand has double-taxation agreements with the countries that those companies are resident in, so that they do not pay tax in both duristictions when earnign income in New Zealand. The basis for the exemption, from the document you linked to, is:

“Before the exemption, non-resident offshore rig operators and seismic vessels had tended to stay in New Zealand for a period of less than 183 days, even if further exploration had been desirable beyond the 183 day window.

They used to stay in New Zealand for less than 183 days, because they could legitimately not pay New Zealand income tax if they were working here for less than 183 days. This is common in international tax law, and a requirement under double taxation agreements. i.e. before this exemption they were not paying tax here anyway!

So, what is the likely effect of this “exemption”? Well, the exemption does not aply to support vessels, nor to crew working on the vessels. So, the net effect is that with more support vessels and more crew hours, then the amount of taxes paid on those will increase. Secondly, for the oil and gas companies (not the drilling and seismic companies), it makes the costs of drilling and shooting seismic lower. As these are costs that are deductable from gross profit for tax purposes, this means that profits are higher for the same amount of work executed, and hence more company tax is paid. Therefore, this “exemption” has probably increased tax take.

You had actually claimed of this exemption that “The governments investment into and tax exemption of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand was more than $100 million in 2012 alone.”

I note the subtle change from “Oil and gas companies” to the “oil and gas industry”, so you’re backling off on your original claim already, but again the “facts”, even those reported by you, don’t actually match your claims. The WWF report that you link to in your later post claims tax breaks of only $5 Million / year for the rig income tax exemption, which is not even in the same order of magnitude as your claims.

So.. Let’s now move on to address the WWF report. It is about as useful as a BJChip interpretation of a subsidy. Essentially it appears to claim that not taxing something is actually subsidising it, which is just nuts. It suggests, shock horror, that the government is “subsidising” oil and gas companies by allowing them to deduct operating costs from their profits before calculating their tax. This is what every company in New Zealand is allowed to do! There is no special treatment for oil and gas companies! They then claim that motor spirits excise duty refund is a tax break for oil companies – it isn’t. It is a tax break for consumers of oil, and again is something that can be offset against income for any business. Gosh. Then they go into complete la-la land by suggesting that not having higher taxes is actually a subsidy! This is BJChip-level ridiculousness. Where does it end? If profits are not taxed at 100%, does this mean they are in fact subsidised?

See the yellow and pink boxes that dominate the “high” returns? That is where the governments actually fund the development of the oil and gas infrastructure and in return take a share of the profits. Are you advocating Public/Private partnerships in developing New Zealand’s oil and gas industry?

Read my other comments in that thread, too, particularly where I point out you were completely wrong on seismic costs.

To be more specific about the farming, it is not necessary to emit CO2 in order to farm. We have had agriculture for a lot longer than we have had the machinery we use for it today. It is more efficient and effective at providing food as a result. The “green” revolution is part of that… and it relies in THAT form, on cheap energy dug from the ground.

My points here have all revolved around the need to find ways to support SOME sort of production of food and other products here in NZ, without the consumption of fossil fuels, a process which is massively impeded by governments and economic assumptions and assertions that leave our children to fend for themselves in the waste we leave to them.

“We do not inherit the world from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”

Understand that. Live by it and you will be a Green, no matter what your industry you will know how to understand the transition we have to undergo, that we or our children WILL undergo, with or without the benefit of having started with a few resources to support the change.

Furthermore…this report by the World Wildlife Fund called Fossil Fuel Finance in New Zealand (PDF) puts the total subsidy the government has given to the oil and gas industry (page 6) at $326.6 million between 2008/09 and 2012/13.

However they don’t include in this calculation the subsidy of such a low tax regime in New Zealand for oil and gas. New Zealand has one of the lowest overall tax takes, at 46% compared with other oil producing countries at an average of 70%.

If photonz’s figure is correct and the oil and gas industry in New Zealand pays annual company tax of $300m and royalties of $400, with a further 24% subsidy they’re getting away with well over a hundred million in subsidies each year.

According to Nick Smith; “The world spends about US$500 billion per year on subsidies”. That money could obviously be better spent preparing for climate change, which is a cost that the oil and gas companies are also being subsidized for.

Some scientific reports are putting the cost of anthropogenic climate change at $60 trillion by 2030. Of course this cost will be paid with people’s taxes, taxes that come from far more productive industries than the polluting and dangerous one spam works for.

Yes… you are correct in that I sprang to the defense of Jackal… and you are wrong because I was NOT wrong in anything I said… though I provided some information about offshore subsidies which was not specific to his statement it was still correct information.

No Spam; apart from the use of the fertilizer, tractor and pesticides which tend to use up oil in various ways which MAY amount to combustion (not always, some of that chemistry is damned long-lived), there is no long term net release of CO2 involved in farming. Stick with what you’re good at.

My point, which was for Photonz benefit, is that it is not a matter of what our vehicles (which we HAVE to have because there is a dearth of alternatives supported by our feckless leaders) burn, but what our society can do to make them unnecessary. I’ll be happy to use an electric car too if they ever become practical. Better at the moment would be to convert cars to run from natural gas and let you frack the island into the ocean while we build the conversion plant to turn electricity, water and CO2 into Methane, and the commuter rail and trams to provide most of us with transport WITHOUT cars. Mostly I think this because I have yet to see a suitable battery based replacement for Automobiles.

Seriously, one has to ask why the F**K the rail link to Hamilton isn’t electrified when the whole of the central plateau IS!?

Farming is not zero sum. More CO2 is emitted (including from the planting and processing etc) than is removed. So are you going to protest organic farming, or not?

And you have forgotten that we do have an emissions trading scheme here that applies to hydrocarbons. and then we have royalty payments. But then again, with your completely warped view on what a subsidy is, then you probably consider these as sudsidies, too.

You may not know what Jackal based his lies on, but you lept to defend him. And you were wrong, too.

Do the math I did, just a little of it, for the actual cost of using the extracted resource as opposed to the cost to extract it. That is a subsidy… by omission and so not clear to most, but definitely a subsidy.

I don’t know what Jackal based HIS understanding of this on, but mine is clear enough. We have already found and proven reserves in excess of any we can afford to burn. We have already paid a massive “tax” in terms of subsidizing the immediate extraction of resources that would better have been left in the ground while the price rose. We are in this case being obligated to accept a risk ( from the deep water drilling – NOT from the fracking ) that is entirely capable of bankrupting this country or leaving substantial portions of it damaged for decades if things should go wrong in any major way.

This isn’t fracking for gas. This is going kilometers down under the ocean to tap resources that aren’t economic at any price for oil that our economy can currently handle.

If is much as if we have consumed all the low hanging fruit on our tree, and now are using ladders and straining ourselves risking life and limb to get the remaining bits and pieces… rather than accepting the need to eat something else.

To this end I hope that they DO manage to do the fracking in SA and elsewhere in ways that keeps the price below that that allows them to attempt the deep-water drilling… because our government is QUITE stupid enough to allow that drilling and the risk without obtaining the guarantees and risk management that would render the risk part of the price of the oil (which is sold on the global market) to the oil company, rather than a cost to the inhabitants of New Zealand who will be the only ones to pay if it goes pear-shaped.

I won’t call you definitively a liar… yet, but if you don’t acknowledge the tacit subsidy given to oil by preferentially allowing the consumers of it to dump their waste at no charge when every other industry and process in our civilization pays for that privilege, then you may as well be one. That is however, only one of the subsidies enjoyed by the oil patch.

I’ve just actually realised the ridiculousness of your views on what constitutes a subsidy.

Where are your protests against the “subsidies” given to organic farmers? I mean those evil bastards are giving people food. When they eat that food, CARBON DIOXIDE IS RELEASED! The government is SUBSIDISING Organic farmers to pollute the atmosphere and cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

And we already know from your other posts that you are principled and that it doesn’t matter if it is only a tiny effect (I.e. you have the view that even though new Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are tiny in comparison to the rest of the world, that we should still address them).

Jackal specifically said that the national government provides hundreds of millions of subsidies and tax breaks. Unless the national government sets US taxes and subsidies, then I don’t think y our rebuttal addresses jackal’s point.

Moreover, fracking consumes immense amounts of water… something like 1.5 million Gallons per well… (do note that I am NOT describing pollution here)

SOME fracking uses that much water. Other fracking uses a couple of orders of magnitude less. Fracking in New Zealand uses nothing like that.

Moreover, fracking consumes immense amounts of water… something like 1.5 million Gallons per well… (do note that I am NOT describing pollution here) and in South Australia (“the driest state on the driest continent on the planet” as they like to call themselves), that is going to be one damned expensive resource… and make the EROEI for that resource even worse.

…and it will STILL run out.

The liquids peaked already and the cost of the stuff has done EXACTLY what the peak oil prediction told us it would. The supply tightened up and the efficiencies required of our civilization are often connected with recessions.

… and you STILL insist on living off extracted rather than the sustainable resources, the bulk of which are in other countries as you like to point out, rather than learning how to live without it. Which we could do, being astride the roaring 40’s and having access to the natural flow through Cook Strait.

There are multiple reasons to move AWAY from oil use. Climate Change is the primary one, but the cost to the society of low EROEI sourced petrol is large and getting larger, and the subsidies distorting the production environment are perverse, and the advantages of moving to a sustainable base while we still have access to the extracted one…

Consider… you have a reserve of cash. You need to get an education so you can have an income. Do you…

A. Use the cash-in-hand to get the education now?

B. Spend it all on Ice-Cream and then try to persuade someone to give you free education.

I won’t call you definitively a liar… yet, but if you don’t acknowledge the tacit subsidy given to oil by preferentially allowing the consumers of it to dump their waste at no charge when every other industry and process in our civilization pays for that privilege, then you may as well be one. That is however, only one of the subsidies enjoyed by the oil patch.

The tax and investment arrangements are substantial enough to make the claim true in any case.

BJ says ” The difference between you and me isn’t that you don’t think we can have that economy…,”

Wrong – I’ve always believed we can have that economy, and often said that George Bush was right when he said technology will be the main factor in reducing our oil use (even if he didn’t get anything else right).

That’s why it’s largely futile to protest deep sea drilling, then fill you car up to get home from the protest, providing a great incentive FOR deep sea drilling.

It’s like a fat person drinking a two litre bottle of coke while protesting that coke should reduce their production to stop obesity.

Photonz, you’d better hope to hell that there IS an economy possible without the petrol, because there ain’t a whole lot more of the stuff relative to the demand, and burning what we already know about is more than sufficient to destroy human civilization.

So if we can’t figure out electric trams and cars and biofuels and zero-carbon sources of electricity then we can all just commit suicide and give up. The difference between you and me isn’t that you don’t think we can have that economy, it is that you want to burn every liter of petrol we can get at before we force our children to TRY to build it.

I can’t fathom why, photonz1 but you are being especially dim with this issue.
Maybe I could help you navigate your way through a simple comment I made, by spelling it out to you. I wrote:
“There was no economy here before oil!!!

Aue te mamae!!!”

By which I meant (big breath now!) that there was an economy here on our shakey isles prior to the arrival of Europeans to theses shores, that of the Pacific Islanders who were living here, people we know as Maori, people who didn’t use petroleum as a fuel source, not did they use anything much in the way of petroleum-derived materials, such as plastic, for their general day-to-day activities.
Does that help?
Bless you, photonz1. God’s speed.

Jackal says “… it appears that there is in fact no benefit to the economy at all from the oil and gas industry.”

Except there WOULDN’T BE an economy without it.

Of course there would be an economy. The question is how well will we manage to move the current economy off its dependence on oil. Building a clean and green economy is clearly achievable and will in fact create more jobs and be far more environmentally and economically sustainable than the current model.

Please try to engage with a bit more clarity in the future photon.

Spam

Liar.

Wow! What a compelling argument you’ve got there Spam. I don’t suppose you’ve been getting a bit too close to those fracking fumes or something?

However, there is no actual accurate figures provided. Also, National has in place a number of tax incentives, holidays and exemptions that mean many oil and gas companies don’t pay any tax at all. The government also subsidizes the oil and gas industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Liar.

We sold most of the Maui oil at SIGNIFICANTLY less than a fifth of the price we might get today, and I expect only perhaps 5% or less of what we would command in another decade. The price of oil went up faster than the rate of inflation. A LOT faster. Exactly as the Greens expected.

That’s lost money to New Zealand. Profits to oil companies.

I didn’t quantify the additional damages from the oil burned, or any of the other things plus or minus. Neither does the Gnatwit cheering paper provide anything like a credible assessment of what the risk is to New Zealand of the deep water drilling it proposes. Something not present at Maui’s 110 meters.

Nor is 1.4 billion a direct benefit to NZ. It is the change in the GDP which WE know has stuff all to do with what something is actually WORTH to our society. However, the actual value of THAT field had we imported more oil and gas and built a low-carbon infrastructure and industry here, would have been more 10x WHATEVER you reckon we received of it.

So we concern ourselves about the future. We concern ourselves about the potential damage to our shoreline and fisheries. We concern ourselves with the money and opportunities lost by letting it all ride on the extractive industries and the short life-span of such unsustainable endeavors.

You can’t be honest and claim this is hypocrisy. Your repeated claim is therefore evidence that you are dishonest. See? We understand your moral failings Photonz, but we aren’t about to be nice to you out of pity. You are what you are.

I’d suggest you stick to numbers games. You’re better at those (though still wrong), and the dishonesty doesn’t create as much ill-will.

National bases its economic plans on the childhood fantasy of finding buried treasure… and the lies of bankers. New Zealand suffers.

The figures you’ve quoted to try and show a major benefit to the economy are clearly wrong! The report states:

The oil and gas industry also generates around $400 million in annual royalty and around $300 million in annual company tax revenue for the government.

However, there is no actual accurate figures provided. Also, National has in place a number of tax incentives, holidays and exemptions that mean many oil and gas companies don’t pay any tax at all. The government also subsidizes the oil and gas industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Furthermore, you need to take into account the cost of continuing to burn fossil fuels when in many cases there are far better alternatives available. In light of climate change having the potential to cost the entire worlds GDP by 2030, it appears that there is in fact no benefit to the economy at all from the oil and gas industry.

Then BJ tries to tell us NZ is only getting $50m benefit from $2-3b of oil and gas revenues. The benefit is actually 5000% higher than that – you’ve only told us of 2% of the benefit reported in your link.

The other 98% that you “forget” to tell about, includes –
– $300m in benefits to NZ from company tax
– $400m in benefits to NZ from royalties
(which compares to the total dividend to govt from power generators last year of $488m)

Not to forget …
– $1,400m total contribution to Taranaki’s regional GDP in wages, services and supplies.

All clearly stated in your link. Funny you didn’t point that info out.

you blame and abuse everyone else for using oil, when like everyone else, you are just as big a part of the problem you are complaining about.

Photonz, you inveterate bullshit artist, you know that the subsidies offered to big oil are so large and the facilities for doing otherwise are so small that there is no choice possible for any actual participant in our society.

Then when we argue and campaign and militate for the SOCIETY to change this you assert that because we haven’t done the impossible we can’t be credible.

We ARE “just as big a problem as everyone else” because we exist and we ARE members of a society that REFUSES to change.

Say there were 5000 workers in Taranaki who are getting fifty k more than the average salary of everyone else in NZ, 5,000 x 10,000 is a total of 50,000,000. Gross value of extracted oil in 2010 year given the prices and lack of carbon tax, was ~$1.9 Billion at ~ $100/bbl – the gas at $7.40 was ~$1.2 Billion so for $3.1 billion in extracted resource we net 50 million? I am using some numbers from

Double the number to 10000 employed at that rate and it is 3.2% of the grossly distorted “value” of the resources extracted… and Taranaki is a “good” field. Shallow, easily reached and mostly depleted enough that there isn’t much risk of a blowout… and the gas is (actually WAS) consumed locally. Nothing much left there any more.

Which may explain some of this government’s desperate sellout, attempting to find more of something, ANYTHING, somewhere that we can dig it up to make up the slack. If it doesn’t find something we might be forced to create a REAL economy based on something other than stuff we can dig out of the ground.

But there isn’t much left for our kids to use if THEY need it.

What would be the true value of the products we just burned up?.. instead of saving it for later? Apart from the CO2 damage from the burning which is a separate consideration… what would the value of that oil be in 2080-2100? It isn’t like we’re finding it in larger and larger amounts.

So those high-paying jobs ain’t likely to hang around past the life of the field… ARE they. Bit of a “flash in the pan”.

At 0.05 metric tons per gigajoule the natural gas contributed 5.8 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Call it 1.5 million metric tons of Carbon and call the damage effect roughly $250 per ton. Could be more or less depending on JUST how bad things get… but it isn’t nothing and that alone makes $362 million in damages for our 100 million of increased pay for workers in the industry. Not counted is the oil burning damage.

Not counted is the lost value to future generations.

Not counted is the lost opportunity to build a sustainable economy.

There is a massive amount of greed evident in the government support of the extractive industries in general, but we get an astonishing amount of less than nothing from them. The companies themselves do well.

And if you really believe the oil companies are raking it in you should buy their shares – you’ll get dividends like 4.5% (Shell), 3.23% Chevron) and 2.75% (Mobil).

Nope. I don’t profit from destroying my own environment Photonz, and unlike some ignorant jackass gnatwits I actually am smart enough to know that. Moreover, if you think the “dividends” have anything to do with the actual money being siphoned off you’ve spent too much time in some NZ nunnery where naivete’ is taught.

You say you don’t want drilling rigs anywhere, yet you need them somewhere so you can fill up your car. Best have them out of sight somewhere.

No asswipe. I do NOT need them to fill up my car. “WE” need them to fill up “OUR” cars, because our government and our society hasn’t done shit to fix any part of the problem. The society has to act collectively to resolve problems like this, and that violates the fundamental tenets of the neo-liberal laissez-faire capitalist religion.

If I or any other Green had the choice our dependence on coal, gas, oil and petrol would be reduced on an extremely urgent basis. Everyone would be presented with the same pain, and the infrastructure to allow us to do WITHOUT petrol would be built, employing a lot of people in the process.

Your position however, is that of we say we want to do anything like this, we first have to commit suicide to avoid the hypocrisy of being part of a society that has refused (so far) to take up its responsibilities to future generations.

Not Guilty. We are a part of this society. WE are working to change it. YOU are fundamentally and effectively arguing that NOBODY can argue to change a society they are a member of… that IS what your argument entails… and it is sophist bullshit.

You aren’t worth the effort Photonz. Braying about how WE consume resources? …is intellectual diarrhea; thin, smelly and you can’t help but release it when you open your orifice.

BJ says “That makes your repeated baseless accusation of us wanting someone else to take the risks, which you repeat ad-nauseum, a lie. Moreover, you KNOW it is a lie. You are being called on it. If you repeat it the abuse will get far more direct. ”

Ooohh! How scary. A threat of more abuse.

Of course it’s true. You say you don’t want drilling rigs anywhere, yet you need them somewhere so you can fill up your car. Best have them out of sight somewhere.

What to do about the hypocrisy….why not pretend you’re not part of the problem and just blame everyone else. Oh – that’s right – you already have.

Efforts that are so lacking of reason to be unworthy of response are rewarded appropriately. Up to this point you have deserved the animal noises for you make a great noise of your own about something that does not exist at all.

The Drilling rigs are unwelcome everywhere.

No environmentalist wants them ANYWHERE!

That makes your repeated baseless accusation of us wanting someone else to take the risks, which you repeat ad-nauseum, a lie. Moreover, you KNOW it is a lie. You are being called on it. If you repeat it the abuse will get far more direct.

The sole purpose of those drill rigs in the economic environment in which we find ourselves, is to keep supplying oil at the current price. Which encourages and permits the further consumption of oil, delaying the effort to change our economy to work with less of the stuff and putting money in the pockets of the foreign companies.

…because that money sure as f**k doesn’t wind up in New Zealand.

Not only do we NOT want the drill rigs, we also DO want petrol to become more scarce… driving up the price and punishing the economics of those who think that the planet is theirs to do with as they please.

It is borrowed from our children… it isn’t there for bankers to pimp for, or for industry to rape.

That of course, is what National thinks of it. Key is very good in the role of pimp. He has conned innocent New Zealanders into spreading our nation’s legs for the rest of the world’s businessmen.

Why are you asking that we quantify the reduction in global fuel use since the protest?
And how on earth do you expect us to find that information?
It seems a stupid question from you, photonz1.
I could as well ask, how many readers of this blog said, quack on reading your question.

Now photo is really slipping and a sliding, one moment saying over and over that the protestors don’t mention reducing oil consumption, and then the next moment enquiring how successful they have been!?

But, Solkta, will photonz1 understand that the protesters link fossil-fuel use with climate change and will he understand that anti-fossil-fuel-exploration protesters want humanity to reduce its fossil-fuel use?Questions, questions!

Deep Sea Oil Watch Auckland is distressed that the Government is expanding the fossil fuel industry in the face of climate change. “The duel risks of climate change and oil spills mean that this industry should be wound down not expanded.

Protest is about using less oil. It is also about halting new drilling, especially in the deep ocean. Your reasoning, photonz1, is faulty and by clinging to it like a limpet to a rock, you risk a round of quacking.

NZ anti-deep sea drilling protesters protest plans to drill off the coast of NZ.
American anti-deep sea drilling protesters protest plans to drill off the coast of America.
Japanese anti-deep sea drilling protesters protest plans to drill off the coast of Japan.
It’s not NIMBY. Each of those groups knows the other sites are covered.
I suppose though that it is true that global deep sea drilling protesters protesting plans to drill anywhere at all on the planet are NIMBYistsAND GOOD ON THEM!!!

Buying petrol does encourage the oil companies to make more, as photonz1 claims. that’s something anti-drilling greens have to acknowledge but do it anyway, IF NECESSARY (hat-tip bjchip). To refuse to use that petrol would mean an individual’s potential to save a great deal of harm, through their protesting, lobbying, appearance in the House or at an overseas forum, would be lost and means some petrol use is UNAVOIDABLE (hat-tip bjchip), if those caught between that rock and hard-place are to maintain their integrity and do as they profess.
This is not difficult to understand, you’ll be pleased to hear, bj.

And yet, bjchip, we’ve hung around here long enough to know that photonz1 won’t take on board your explanation, adjust his view accordingly and come back to the debate with a new angle. He’ll simply revert to his original utterance. There is a word and a phrase that describes that sort of behaviour. Still, it gives solkta and I a chance to practice our animal noises.

Yet every time you fill your car up, you encourage the exact opposite.

I live in THIS society and must make my living within its constraints. I advocate for changes to the society as a whole so that WE may make less of an impact on the planet collectively. What I am FORCED to do is in no way a mark of hypocrisy, but your assertion marks you as a purveyor of sophist bullshit.

Every time I choose to walk (when this is possible), live somewhere I can take mass transit (where this is possible), create mass transit (in part by unelecting the assholes currently ruining this country) or purchase the most fuel-efficient car I can afford. I am doing EXACTLY what I am advocating.

The fact that I as an individual have to arrange my personal consumption and production so as to support my family is quite different from a “choice” that you can point to as hypocritical.

You’ll squeal at my description, ‘bargain-basement’ to describe the relative value or lack thereof, of your opinions but bear in mind, bjchip called them ‘bullshit’ and while I agreed with his take, I’m too polite to use those words.

Green MPs have nothing invested in green-tech?
Only the bulk of their waking hours.
Your use of the term ‘preach’ reveals your method here on Frogblog, the snide use of language intended to demean the party, its MPs and commenters here. Some one will snip back at you and you’ll yelp, ad hom as if you were a stranger to its use.
Talk is cheap, you say and I can see why you believe that. Your own is bargain-basement. That of the Green MPs on the issues around green tech, top-shelf.

BJ says “Bullshit again. We want EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to stop pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them. We want EVERYONE’s environment, EVERYWHERE to be protected and the risks costed properly. ”

Yet every time you fill your car up, you encourage the exact opposite.

Deep Sea Oil Watch Auckland is distressed that the Government is expanding the fossil fuel industry in the face of climate change. “The duel risks of climate change and oil spills mean that this industry should be wound down not expanded.

Those costs were born by the people of Indonesia when they had their spill, by the residents of most countries on the Gulf of Mexico when THAT spill occurred. Insurance against that sort of mess is NOT easy or cheap, but is born by people, not the corporations, so the oil and gas can be cheaper and the use not curtailed by the actual market forces consequent on actually pricing the risks.

…and try to get the pack of liars in power at present to put forth the effort to make electrified rail available to more of the population.

Your self-serving exercises in cynicism miss that little detail Photonz, as they do most of reality.

“They want someone else, somewhere else, to do that”

Bullshit again. We want EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to stop pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them. We want EVERYONE’s environment, EVERYWHERE to be protected and the risks costed properly.

You want to drill offshore? I want the insurance against the consequences… and you are NOT willing and the industry is NOT willing, to pay that sort of cost. Nope, you lay that off on the people of New Zealand and the profits go to the corporation, NOT the people of New Zealand and that is how National likes it.

Of course they aren’t. They want alternatives explored and implemented. I’ll bet each of them supports and promotes green-energy alternatives. That’s why they protest the proposals to mine the deep-sea beds. They don’t want environmental risks to be taken elsewhere. They want sustainable alternatives that don’t threaten our futures. You are cynical and can’t stop yourself from attacking them because you are unable to understand how environmentally conscious people think and you can’t stop yourself from attacking people whose behaviour doesn’t match yours.
In short, you are not worth listening to, or responding to, other than to expose you for what you are – ossified and bitter.

That rather ordinary argument about the advocates of limits having to limit themselves first, is ridiculous no matter who provides it.

In the general case, I may not disagree with your position, though the position does have a certain lack of logic to it, but that is a digression we need not address here.

This thread is the more specific case of, bluntly, NIMBYism. This thread is not about people with a similar agenda to you and I, which is that we need to reduce overall fossil fuel usage, and that have taken personal steps to help attain that overall goal. This is people who are objecting to deep sea drilling in their patch, without showing any evidence of contributing to the overall goal of usage reduction. Nowhere does Catherine relate that these people are doing anything towards the real goal. They, as the saying goes, want their cake, but don’t want the mess in their kitchen.

These people are not environmentalists, they are NIMBYists. They want the benefits, and have others pay the price.

We know extracting fossil fuels is environmentally damaging (and sometimes environmentally catastrophic). The consensus is that using fossil fuels as we do today will turn out badly. Yet knowing this, we continue to do these things, because of the benefits that (most of) society believes fossil fuels bring to overall society. This may be madness, but it is where we are. This thread’s cause will not do a jot to stave off the end.

That rather ordinary argument about the advocates of limits having to limit themselves first, is ridiculous no matter who provides it.

The problems of lifeboat ethics are not resolved by telling those who advocate rationing to starve themselves first. You know, and you know well, that the tragedy of the commons is ONLY resolved through the collective action of the society, not through the actions of individuals, and refusal to consider the first because its advocates are unwilling to disadvantage themselves relative to YOU in order to make the point, is intellectually dishonest.

What we CAN do is to arrange our society and infrastructure so that oil and petrol are far less necessary. That is what Greens advocate. The risks that someone else is “willing to take”? I’d wager that they weren’t asked and that the risks weren’t very well explained, no more than before the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

I’d rather have a nuclear power plant than offshore drilling for oil… the risks are SMALLER.

This govt should have resigned themselves long ago from doing lousy job…
Is it really the only option available to NZ public that we have to wait patiently with great frustration till next election before we can get rid of this govt who have been wrecking and selling this country in light speed…GBNZ!

About 10% of the world’s supply of crude is from deep sea wells, and something a bit over 5% from fracking. This stuff is in our fuel supply stream now. (If I could find the right graph I’d post a link)

There is zero point in protesting about the extraction technology, those technologies are necessary (and will be more necessary in the future) to maintain the volume of fuel we consume. If we were to take 10% of the world’s fuel supply out of the equation, then fuel prices would rise, and rise quite a bit; the rise would have to be sufficient to ensure a usage drop of 10%. This would, of course, hit the poorest countries and then poorest members of less poor countries first. Car ownership and fuel availability becomes less of a birthright and more of a privilege, enjoyed by the “haves”.

Obviously, supply and demand applies too, and the more expensive extractive techniques are only economic with a high oil price; get the demand down so that oil is in moderate double digit bucks a barrel, and there simply isn’t enough margin in deep sea and fracking for it to continue.

If one want to make a difference, one has to understand that the world’s demand for fossil fuel products has to reduce. Leading by example, of course, so ones-self, one’s family, friends, colleagues…

While we continue to consume fossil fuel products at the current rate, then the oil companies take that as the green light that we want them to deliver the fuel by any means practicable. Ask a representative sample of people, I think you’d find they are bang on the money.

*Powerful *new *argument from photonz1. Full of holes though. How much do you bet the oil that went into the tanks of those cars came from a deep sea well, photonz1?
How much do you bet they were happy about using petrol, if indeed they did?
And who are those brave, brave risk-taking souls you mention?
So many questions, so little substance to the allegations.
*sarc